bond_treasure_issue_cninfo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the data source URL and return type but does not disclose behavioral traits like date range handling, pagination, rate limits, or whether the returned data is a snapshot. No contradiction with annotations is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured, with a clear title-like path, a URL, and standard parameter documentation blocks. It is not overly verbose, and each element serves a purpose, though the URL could be considered extraneous for an AI agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This simple two-parameter tool has no output schema and relies on the description to convey essential usage context. While the description identifies the data source and general purpose, it omits critical details such as the date format expectation and any note about the date range's inclusivity or exclusivity, leaving an agent with incomplete information to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides Chinese labels for start_date ('开始统计时间') and end_date ('结束统计数据'), which adds some semantic value beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify the required date format (e.g., YYYYMMDD), despite defaults suggesting a numeric format, leaving room for user error.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the resource as '国债发行' (treasury bond issuance) from Cninfo's data center, which clearly identifies the data domain. The name and title further confirm the tool's purpose, though the description lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'. It differentiates from siblings by the 'treasury' qualifier, but does not explicitly contrast with other issue types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the description's path and the tool name, indicating this is for treasury bond issuance data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like bond_corporate_issue_cninfo or bond_local_government_issue_cninfo, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.